Re: Applicability, Use-cases, and Architecture for the CRH

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 16 May 2020 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7036C3A0835 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a8g5ieAdFVDz for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E6853A0834 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id v63so1846491pfb.10 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YN8IsmxFLSB9UUfkuKNccYM7N09/JxiDhd12O4Vzboc=; b=ZDXGWBY1DmFBKVGf8Z5vrJNd0Rs4OBFnNMF313ZXXwGgsMY2BvghVbgz+/nyDFj21Y nSmsb7qlPWVzsNQ2zMLA69wGTo0FudxWSxcOBMFsxolGVZ5dfIRCA8Jzc+358Vlz1PYR ysQTmFikaVAaW9dTUINGcIkP7+MZTvOVrvjyVfEbuRX4pd6+a0jxEM0ui6Th22zpRgJy 2r0nymcmd9V46cOwjCPRFLSh7e3Xp6eClEPJVXMRfYGd4p8/5L7cCmumZ46DhZiJuQCT ZJHWu9YwsE98GfkoH3nr9cFsD1pBhOQqskGZPaKAlxnQgB65ytjq+2Oi1KT6FomPkXlG 8c7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YN8IsmxFLSB9UUfkuKNccYM7N09/JxiDhd12O4Vzboc=; b=lzHAZ3zPq1k5hslLqGJ3OvGlLbtnKn/cLEnpk8ocMPbW+p5U3bkO0veZKxsIqB9Qp7 xPF033KukFCae11apJrIzF6dIyNZL5xH3Z5cAWfAgixu5Oy0loHRdq5JrOXW63hqsqmf 8UYAXGau2qf29rabbUAKvK7ruMh3cV9EkMBwExXkgTqm33zaWrzeXuh6r6+g2DOofcov x0uuSvPJ8gmxsGdhHXO6TDqTgQ9XJzUBTOyAbFRIRCwVl/Oh07aGmKOeIhi7v6FxmZHb QaBFVyTonYoW/TVqXFqtEO+ciRhuyjO4PJSR5kzetNGP/f9H9bSvTP93xo1X8ohxqlQv lxIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530z8mNyaP8Heym5cEp3G9NJnKBUveHv0MfTiY6bSN92rJDcTSHh iDii/MaG0TWeMHXMBOPAK/Y0VIQ2
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6+BCUYB08VcyL5cxAhhykGtGlKLLQymLB7DxygTB1h82fnj4aVL5CiCfrvD/iErvU8mkHsw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1a58:: with SMTP id a24mr5859473pgm.419.1589593246446; Fri, 15 May 2020 18:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i11sm2405209pjs.44.2020.05.15.18.40.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 15 May 2020 18:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Applicability, Use-cases, and Architecture for the CRH
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR05MB634898C57C186C0133B2F852AEBA0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fec4e31b-0c98-7b3b-bbf0-d3225a21bc30@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 13:40:41 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB634898C57C186C0133B2F852AEBA0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/i2srDj1cHLaJlHE4JqwD10wyrIk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 01:40:50 -0000

Hi Ron,

Looking at your draft plus this extra material, I still think that the concept of a SID is helicoptered in to some extent. It isn't obvious to me that a SID in CRH is semantically the same thing as a SID in the Spring WG. Either it is, in which case you should cite the relevant SID RFC, or it isn't, in which case there is some more writing to do.

I think you could also give an ack to the C-SIDs in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lc-6man-generalized-srh-00

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 16-May-20 12:41, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Darren,
> 
> In previous emails, you suggest that the CRH draft needs information regarding Applicability, Use-cases and Architecture. After the call for adoption, we could add the proposed text, below.
> 
> Would this text address your concerns. If not, please provide specific recommendations.
> 
>                                                                          Ron
> 
>  
> 
> PROPOSED TEXT
> 
> ----------------------
> 
>  
> 
> 9.0 Applicability
> 
>  
> 
> The CRH can be used within any network where:
> 
>   * All nodes implement IPv6.
>   * Edge node can filter inbound packets that contain the CRH.
>   * Selected nodes can process the CRH. If a node is identified in a CRH, and it is not the packet’s ultimate destination, it must be able to process the CRH.
>   * All nodes can maintain a basic FIB that maps IPv6 prefixes to next-hops.
>   * Selected nodes can maintain a CRH-FIB that maps SIDs to IPv6 addresses and forwarding methods. If a node is identified in a CRH, and it is not the packet’s ultimate destination, it must be able to
>   * CRH overhead is acceptable
> 
> CRH-16  overhead is as follows:
> 
>   * 2 SIDs can be stored in a 8-byte CRH
>   * 6 SIDs can be stored in a 16-byte CRH
>   * 10 SIDs can be stored in a 24-byte CRH
>   * 14 SIDs can be stored in a 32-byte CRH
>   * Etc.
> 
> CRH-32  overhead is as follows:
> 
>   * 1 SIDs can be stored in a 8-byte CRH
>   * 3 SIDs can be stored in a 16-byte CRH
>   * 5 SIDs can be stored in a 24-byte CRH
>   * 7 SIDs can be stored in a 32-byte CRH
>   * Etc.
> 
>  
> 
> 10.0 Use-cases
> 
>  
> 
> The CRH can be used to provide traffic steering in:
> 
>  
> 
>   * Data centers
>   * Service provider networks
>   * Enterprise networks
> 
> Each of these networks may have a preferred method for populating the basic FIB and the CRH-FIB. For example, a data center may use a controller to populate both FIBs while a service provider may use an IGP to populate both FIBs.
> 
> The CRH can implemented on:
> 
>   * ASIC-based routers
>   * Software-based routers
>       o Stand-alone
>       o In a container on a server in a data center
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 11.0 Architecture
> 
>  
> 
> CRH architecture determined entirely by RFC 8200. Specifically:
> 
>  
> 
>   * IPv6 source nodes use the CRH to determine nodes that a packet visits on route to is ultimate destination.
>   * The CRH does not subsume the function of any other IPv6 extension header. For example, the CRH cannot be used for authentication, or to deliver optional internet-layer information to the packet’s ultimate destination node.
>   * A packet that contains the CRH can also contain any valid combination of IPv6 extension headers. All extension header should function as per their specifications.
>   * The CRH assumes that IPv6 Destination Address semantics are as defined in RFC 8200 and RFC 4291.
>   * The CRH is processed identically on every node (See Section 5 of this document). Processing rules do not depend upon information encoded in the IPv6 Destination Address.
>   *  
> 
> The CRH conforms to the letter and spirit of RFC 8200. For example:
> 
>   * A packet cannot contain two instances of the CRH
>   * A CRH cannot be added or deleted by any node along a packet’s processing path
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>